Law & Disorder —

EPA finalizes automotive fuel economy rules

The EPA's final rules for improving automotive fuel efficiency have been …

Nearly a year ago, the Obama administration announced a deal that settled a long-running dispute which, over the years, has involved over a dozen states, the federal government, the Supreme Court, and the automobile industry. The deal would see a rapid rise in the CAFE standards, which set the average fuel efficiency of the US' automobile fleet. Today, the EPA announced the finalized version of the deal.

The new CAFE standards will cover the years from 2012 through 2016, and will shift the focus from one of gas mileage to one of carbon emissions: by 2016, the combined average emissions for cars and light trucks cannot exceed 250 grams of carbon dioxide a mile. That is the equivalent of 35.5mpg in today's terms. Automakers will have some flexibility in how they reach this; it appears that many will improve the efficiency of their vehicles' electrical systems.

Over the lifetime of the vehicles, the EPA estimates that the new rules will save nearly a metric Gigaton of CO2 emissions and 1.8 billion barrels of oil. On the consumer side, the changes are expected to increase the price of vehicles by roughly $1,000. However, the increased fuel savings will balance that in a few years, and consumers are expected to save several thousand dollars over the lifetime of the vehicles.

Although everyone involved with the new rules seems content with the results, rumblings are already starting due to the short time window laid out. 2016 isn't too far away in terms of automotive design, and California, which spearheaded the development of the new rules, has apparently already considered raising standards further when the current deal expires.

John Timmer / John became Ars Technica's science editor in 2007 after spending 15 years doing biology research at places like Berkeley and Cornell.

What if automakers instead decide to attach big diapers to the exhaust systems so that the carbon emissions are essentially zero (until it's time to scrap the car, in which case everything gets shipped to a third-world salvage yard)?

Yes, as a country, our fuel consumption needs to come down. And yes, as a country, our Co2 emissions could probably also stand for a reduction. However, outside of pandering to "green" fanatics, I don't see the point in changing the metric.

What if automakers instead decide to attach big diapers to the exhaust systems so that the carbon emissions are essentially zero (until it's time to scrap the car, in which case everything gets shipped to a third-world salvage yard)?

Doesn't help with the one thing yanks actually care about: money. Fuel efficiency is about more than CO2 emissions; it's about how much hard-earned dough it takes to fill 'er up. Compare and contrast my 1.5L 4 banger Toyota build in 2005 to my buddy's 1986 v8 retrofitted WTF former police cruiser.

I can make it from my metro to the nearest other major metro (about 350km @ 110kph) on about 20L of gas. I think my buddy has to stop every 50km to murder a series of endangered owls and push then into his gas tank. (I *** you not, he averages 80L for the same trip.) That's after he had it tuned up.

Needless to say when I took him down there and proved to him I could make the trip on 20L, he immediately brought the thing to the local pick-a-part for scrap and bought himself something new. What he saves in gas a year almost makes up for his car payments.

The whole doing-the-bare-minimum-to-prevent-global-warming thing is entirely a side benefit.

Not nearly enough. Zero out suvs and minivans completely. Increase the federal gas tax $1 per gallon per year for the next 20 years. Don't let the auto companies get around the regulations by claiming the consumer vehicles are "trucks". Charge a tax of $1,000 for every 1 mpg less then 50 mpg the model gets. Make power steering illegal. Elect someone who actually gives a hoot.

The world economy is singularly tied to oil right now and there is no chance of a global recovery until we stop feeding our "addiction"- as W so eloquently put it.

RE dlux, cars with diapers would certainly make the commute more interesting- until the novelty wears off.

What if automakers instead decide to attach big diapers to the exhaust systems so that the carbon emissions are essentially zero (until it's time to scrap the car, in which case everything gets shipped to a third-world salvage yard)?

Doesn't help with the one thing yanks actually care about: money. Fuel efficiency is about more than CO2 emissions; it's about how much hard-earned dough it takes to fill 'er up. Compare and contrast my 1.5L 4 banger Toyota build in 2005 to my buddy's 1986 v8 retrofitted WTF former police cruiser.

I can make it from my metro to the nearest other major metro (about 350km @ 110kph) on about 20L of gas. I think my buddy has to stop every 50km to murder a series of endangered owls and push then into his gas tank. (I *** you not, he averages 80L for the same trip.) That's after he had it tuned up.

Needless to say when I took him down there and proved to him I could make the trip on 20L, he immediately brought the thing to the local pick-a-part for scrap and bought himself something new. What he saves in gas a year almost makes up for his car payments.

The whole doing-the-bare-minimum-to-prevent-global-warming thing is entirely a side benefit.

Yanks don't believe in global warming, after all.

It's not so much the "buy something new" as "buy something different. I had an '86 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS. If I didn't shamelessly drive the crap out of it, I got somewhere in the neighborhood of 19-21 miles per gallon. One might expect a "modern day" equivalent to it to get better mileage, but that's really not the case. The new Dodge Chargers are a close equivalent that get similar mileage and don't exactly embarrass the 20-year old Chevy in terms of acceleration.

It's not just Detroit, either. My old 1984 Toyota Celica managed to get 30 miles per gallon before rust turned the car to Swiss cheese. That's about what my sister-in-law gets with her 2007 Corolla, and the Yaris models typically get less than 5 mpg better.

Maybe it's just the models available in the American market? I'm not sure, but it definitely seems like for all the advances in engine design, powertrain management, transmissions, and what have you, there really haven't been significant in-class fuel economy improvements over the last 20-30 years.

Then again, consumers need to take a better look at what they drive as compared to their actual driving needs. How many of the 1 million + buyers of General Motors truck buyers actually need the utility of those trucks? How many of them could get along just fine 90% of the time in a compact/midsize sedan that would likely get 75% better fuel economy and then rent/borrow a truck the few times they'd need it?

I believe in reducing carbon emissions as much as anyone but these regulations are stupid. There's one best way to reduce emissions: a carbon tax. Unlike fuel economy requirements, a carbon tax would get people to:* live closer to their jobs* stop driving with one foot on the gas and the other on the brake* get tune-ups to keep the car running optimally* carpool or bike* spur development of non-gasoline autos and greatly increase demand for themInstead, this law just has one benefit, which is to increase the average fuel economy of cars, and it doesn't even do that as well as a gas tax.

It's not so much the "buy something new" as "buy something different. I had an '86 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS. If I didn't shamelessly drive the crap out of it, I got somewhere in the neighborhood of 19-21 miles per gallon. One might expect a "modern day" equivalent to it to get better mileage, but that's really not the case. The new Dodge Chargers are a close equivalent that get similar mileage and don't exactly embarrass the 20-year old Chevy in terms of acceleration.

Sporty cars aren't meant to be efficient, though, even today. Especially not the ones wearing the hat of the old Muscle Car legacy.

Quote:

It's not just Detroit, either. My old 1984 Toyota Celica managed to get 30 miles per gallon before rust turned the car to Swiss cheese. That's about what my sister-in-law gets with her 2007 Corolla, and the Yaris models typically get less than 5 mpg better.

Of course, modern cars also tend to come with a lot of amenities and safety equipment that they didn't have 25 years ago, and it seems like most cars in the American market have used technology advancements for gaining engine power rather than economy. That old Celica had about 95-105 horsepower under the hood, but the Corolla has 126 hp, and probably a lot more electronics. The Yaris is actually more comparable to the Celica in terms of power. I heard the news about the new fuel standards today and right after that segment there was a commercial break advertising a sedan whose V6 has "the power of a V8," yet touted the fuel-efficiency. It's silly.

What if automakers instead decide to attach big diapers to the exhaust systems so that the carbon emissions are essentially zero (until it's time to scrap the car, in which case everything gets shipped to a third-world salvage yard)?

Doesn't help with the one thing yanks actually care about: money. Fuel efficiency is about more than CO2 emissions; it's about how much hard-earned dough it takes to fill 'er up. Compare and contrast my 1.5L 4 banger Toyota build in 2005 to my buddy's 1986 v8 retrofitted WTF former police cruiser.

I can make it from my metro to the nearest other major metro (about 350km @ 110kph) on about 20L of gas. I think my buddy has to stop every 50km to murder a series of endangered owls and push then into his gas tank. (I *** you not, he averages 80L for the same trip.) That's after he had it tuned up.

Needless to say when I took him down there and proved to him I could make the trip on 20L, he immediately brought the thing to the local pick-a-part for scrap and bought himself something new. What he saves in gas a year almost makes up for his car payments.

The whole doing-the-bare-minimum-to-prevent-global-warming thing is entirely a side benefit.

Yanks don't believe in global warming, after all.

It's not so much the "buy something new" as "buy something different. I had an '86 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS. If I didn't shamelessly drive the crap out of it, I got somewhere in the neighborhood of 19-21 miles per gallon. One might expect a "modern day" equivalent to it to get better mileage, but that's really not the case. The new Dodge Chargers are a close equivalent that get similar mileage and don't exactly embarrass the 20-year old Chevy in terms of acceleration.

It's not just Detroit, either. My old 1984 Toyota Celica managed to get 30 miles per gallon before rust turned the car to Swiss cheese. That's about what my sister-in-law gets with her 2007 Corolla, and the Yaris models typically get less than 5 mpg better.

Maybe it's just the models available in the American market? I'm not sure, but it definitely seems like for all the advances in engine design, powertrain management, transmissions, and what have you, there really haven't been significant in-class fuel economy improvements over the last 20-30 years.

Then again, consumers need to take a better look at what they drive as compared to their actual driving needs. How many of the 1 million + buyers of General Motors truck buyers actually need the utility of those trucks? How many of them could get along just fine 90% of the time in a compact/midsize sedan that would likely get 75% better fuel economy and then rent/borrow a truck the few times they'd need it?

emissions got much tougher over that period. Due to the tighter NOx standards car can no longer burn lean and actually have to burn a bit rich. Then there was the demand for higher safety which added more weight to the car.

Just look at the gm series2 3800. In the 90s it would get 30 mpg on the highway but in 2004 the same engine in the same model car would only get 26.

One might expect a "modern day" equivalent to it to get better mileage, but that's really not the case.

Every time I ask that question, I usually get "safety" as the response. Modern cars have air bags, ABS, crumple zones, etc, Then there's the tighter modern emissions all the electronic luxuries. It all adds up to sap away all the gains in engine efficiency.

I could have picked better examples, and I probably could have been more clear, but I think you miss the point I was trying to make:

Our fuel consumption (and, therefore, carbon dioxide emissions) are so high in large part because people tend to have more vehicle than they need.

I know that general emission requirements, safety regulations, NVH requirements, and standard equipment can add weight and/or serve to the detriment of fuel economy. I wasn't trying so much to condemn auto manufacturers for not making significant strides with respect to in-class fuel economy, more to point out that people need to re-evaluate what class of vehicle they drive.

I'll use my father as something approaching an ideal solution. Weather permitting, he'll drive his motorcycle (well over 50 mpg). When it rains, or when he has to bring small amounts of cargo, or has a passenger, he'll take his MG B (yeah, the 1960's-era engine might not be great with respect to emissions, but he gets 28 mpg). For the few times he needs to carry or haul significant cargo, he still has his one-ton dually (which gets something like 14-15 mpg with any appreciable load, but I think only saw 3000 miles last year).

I know I can't expect everyone to have a veritable fleet of vehicles, but too often people go towards the other extreme. One of my friends has a 3/4-ton pickup. He has yet to use the bed for anything other than his bowling equipment and has never used it to tow anything. It simply carries him (an occasionally one other person) to work 30 miles away at 15 mpg.

I could have picked better examples, and I probably could have been more clear, but I think you miss the point I was trying to make:

Our fuel consumption (and, therefore, carbon dioxide emissions) are so high in large part because people tend to have more vehicle than they need.

I definitely agree with you there. I drive a Fit, but only because it was a better ride than the Yaris I was looking at and had a slightly better safety rating. I never even considered anything larger than a sub-compact when I was looking for a new car; and it's already almost more than I need. Half the people on the road still have SUVs or oversized pickups around here, but they're usually only seating one to three people and the pickup beds are often empty of everything but the toolbox. I honestly think the minivans were better because they're more practical for haulin' families, tend to get a few more MPG, and are safer.

My little brother is like your friend: he doesn't haul much of anything (other than garbage every few weeks: no curb service around here) yet he still went for a big, used F-150 over the Tacoma I was trying to nudge at him. The Ford is way more than he (or the rest of the house) needs and guzzles gas like a feeding whale. But he wanted to go big.

I could have picked better examples, and I probably could have been more clear, but I think you miss the point I was trying to make:

Our fuel consumption (and, therefore, carbon dioxide emissions) are so high in large part because people tend to have more vehicle than they need.

I definitely agree with you there. I drive a Fit, but only because it was a better ride than the Yaris I was looking at and had a slightly better safety rating. I never even considered anything larger than a sub-compact when I was looking for a new car; and it's already almost more than I need. Half the people on the road still have SUVs or oversized pickups around here, but they're usually only seating one to three people and the pickup beds are often empty of everything but the toolbox. I honestly think the minivans were better because they're more practical for haulin' families, tend to get a few more MPG, and are safer.

My little brother is like your friend: he doesn't haul much of anything (other than garbage every few weeks: no curb service around here) yet he still went for a big, used F-150 over the Tacoma I was trying to nudge at him. The Ford is way more than he (or the rest of the house) needs and guzzles gas like a feeding whale. But he wanted to go big.

Man, I want a Fit. I actually went and drooled over a few of them last year before test driving one, and then realized I could afford the loan or the insurance (with collision), but not both.

Sad thing is, the Fit has about as much as my old Jeep Cherokee had, but those things get double the mileage (and are much more fun to drive on-road).

If my calculations are correct, my 2005 model will already exceed the CAFE numbers, even the emissions.

It's a diesel. I'd like to see more on the road. It's a shame we Americans still have such a negative view of them, because the old adage "people buy horsepower, but drive torque" is true. And diesels have torque in spades AND low CO2 emissions.

Of course the newer diesels with particulate traps get really lousy mileage (relatively speaking), but such is "progress". We breathe better but burn more fuel.

Instead, we'll wind up with more hybrids on the road. Great if you live in NYC or Chicago, but terrible if you live in Nebraska or Mississippi. The open road is just so much more pleasurable in a diesel, they really should be the first choice of anyone who drives interstates all day.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not disparaging hybrids. I just wish we could adopt a hybrids-for-cities/diesels-for-the-country approach. One or the other is OK, the two options together would save a LOT of fuel.

250 gram of CO2 per mile by the year 2016? In comparison, EU is mandating that the fleet-average in EU must be 95 grams per kilometer (152 grams per mile) by 2020 and 130grams (208 grams in miles) by 2012...

Oh, and Jeffro-Tull:

Quote:

I'll use my father as something approaching an ideal solution. Weather permitting, he'll drive his motorcycle (well over 50 mpg). When it rains, or when he has to bring small amounts of cargo, or has a passenger, he'll take his MG B (yeah, the 1960's-era engine might not be great with respect to emissions, but he gets 28 mpg). For the few times he needs to carry or haul significant cargo, he still has his one-ton dually (which gets something like 14-15 mpg with any appreciable load, but I think only saw 3000 miles last year).

I'm not sure just how economical it is to have three vehicles if you could do with just one.... As you pointed out, he rarely needs the pickup (which I assume the third vehicle is). Why not rent a van or a trailer for the few times he needs to haul cargo?

Significant reductions can be had today. And they need not cost a fortune nor does it imply to strip all convenience and security features.

For instance we get 45 mpg from our car if we restrict ourselves to 75 mph and 50 mpg if we drive carefully and more in the 65 mph range. That's an off-the-shelf 2002 Skoda Octavia with AC, ABS, power-steering, a VW-engineered 90 hp tdi engine, five seats and sufficient room in the back.

Even if we cruise the autobahn at 100 mph, which is a comfortable traveling speed for this car, it is pretty much impossible to get less than 35 mpg from this car.

Note that it isn't an expensive high-tech car either.

Yes, people buy too much car for what they really need. Mercedes Benz' Car2Go mobility concept has been very successful in the pilot phase. In short, Mercedes have placed many Smart micro cars all over the town. People had to register and could then easily pick one up when they needed it. Fair prices billed by the minute, hour or day depending on how long you need the car. Many times, a Smart is all you need. Sometimes a station wagon. Rarely ever a truck. But too many people still go for the truck.

That's 'good'??? My TDI Jetta gets 45+ mpg (depending on how hard I am on that 'go faster pedal') and I just towed 7000 lbs (total weight) cross country. I also have pretty much every modern safety device they make, in a car with very good crash test ratings. So my *one* car (with a trailer when needed) replaces all 3 of that person's vehicles.

That's the thing; trailers seem to be completely unknown in the US, if I have to believe all the stories of folks who insist on their F150 to haul drywall every single week while moving their family of 5 kids to the megastore at the same time.

I'd love to see more commute vehicles here - 2 seats, toned down engine (not like you can use it in a traffic jam anyway) and streamlined up the wazoo. It's just that all vehicles like that are sports cars with powerful engines, and that all the short city cars have the aerodynamics of a brick.

It's good that you don't give a shit about some mythical CO2 number dreamt up by that darn left libruhl Al Gore and his evil climate scientist conspiracy. Start giving a shit about your wallet and your direct sponsoring of the house of Saud.

I live on my university campus, and I drive to work, which is about a mile away but in such a bad neighborhood that it would be suicide to walk (I work the night shift). I drive a mile to work and a mile back, five days a week, and about once or twice a month I make a 30-mile round trip to visit my parents. I do all of this in a 2002 Ford Mustang GT, and I drive like a hooligan (a safe hooligan, mind you - lots of acceleration, but extreme mindfulness of road conditions, safe speeds, and my surroundings). I average 12-13 MPG. But you know what? I happen to love driving. Not just driving, but the feel of my V8's torque, the sensation of pulling onto the freeway and acceleration from a full stop to 80 miles per hour. My daily one-mile commute is about the only pleasure I get between studying and working, and that's worth dedicating a couple of hours of work every month to paying for gas.

The general consensus in this thread seems to be that I suck, I'm a selfish asshole, and I drive a pointless car when I could accomplish the same thing with 1.0L engine. Well, I can't. I'm very happy that you can get pleasure out of all the various activites you enjoy, but one of my favorite things happens to be driving. Fuck your carbon tax, fuck your fleet average requirements, and fuck your moral elitism. I'll stop driving my Mustang when gas prices are too high because of real economic factors, and I'll make that judgement myself. Until then, work on inventing better electric cars without forcing me to drive the shitty hybrids and economy cars currently on the market. I'll buy a Tesla Roadster when it costs $10,000 used, and I'll buy a Prius when it has more than 5hp and doesn't look like a fat box on toy wheels. So will the millions of other Americans who drive Mustangs, Camaros, and F-150s. For once, just keep the government out of the market and win my support by making a better car instead of raising standards to limit my options to a choice between a fat, slow piece of shit and a $100,000 hairdryer.

I'll stop driving my Mustang when gas prices are too high because of real economic factors, and I'll make that judgement myself.

The entire price of gas in the US isn't a real economic factor anyway, because the damage you do isn't factored in and your fuel is subsidized.

All your speed is useless with speed limits, all your power is useless when you're not moving more than your own ass. Exactly why should we have mercy with this?

You can get oil out of the ground only once and burn it only once; not so with electricity. To compensate for your hurt feelings, perhaps it's possible to build in vroom-vroom noises and rumble for your chair, which is probably what's going to happen anyway since it's so hard to cross the street alive and unflattened without looking if you can't hear some steel fortress' engine growling.

Power steering? Of all the things on modern cars, power steering? Oh, right, April 1st.

Not April fools, this would immediately cut gas consumption by at least 80%. People will only drive/buy cars that they can actually steer. If you have ever driven a truck without power steering you will know exactly what I mean. People will choose a Focus over an Expedition if they have to actually steer the vehicles with their own arms. Power steering is almost entirely responsible for the ever-increasing size of vehicles.

Next year's vehicle registration could require an on-site inspection and if you haven't disabled power steering the government will do it for you. As soon as people drive out of the parking lot they will immediately be thinking about getting a new car that suits their upper body strength ( ... this BMW the government bought me with stimulus money is really cool but really hard to steer!)

There are so many simple solutions to the oil consumption problem. They all involve lots and lots of bitching and moaning. The current situation is analogous to the government treating its citizens like diabetic kids and giving the kids candy so they don't bitch and moan. Drastically reducing oil usage requires us to elect someone who will do what is best even though we will cry like little kids who fear our candy being taken away. Just look at how much the government is spending these days and it is proof how much our elected officials feel the need to bribe us. The administration's answer to unemployment and economic woes is to spend "more" money. That is idiotic. The current economy is easy to deal with compared to the cultural backlash associated with reducing oil usage to perhaps 10% of its current level. We need leaders who will make the right, and tough, decisions that place this country in a position to best meet the next few decades- not just give us candy so we enter our later years as amputees. (that analogy was taken too far, sorry.)

Even if you think global warming is sketchy, the global economics of oil should be more than enough reason to get off oil. There is no hope for a global economic recovery with it being directly tied to oil. When the economy gets better, it will be held in check with rising oil prices. And these will skyrocket at some point within the next 20 years crippling all economies that haven't gotten off of oil.

I'll stop driving my Mustang when gas prices are too high because of real economic factors, and I'll make that judgement myself.

The entire price of gas in the US isn't a real economic factor anyway, because the damage you do isn't factored in and your fuel is subsidized.

All your speed is useless with speed limits, all your power is useless when you're not moving more than your own ass. Exactly why should we have mercy with this?

I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. I don't have much of it anyway (did you catch the university+job thing?). Go ahead and unsubsidize gas prices, I'd rather pay $20 a gallon (and drastically cut down on my driving) than have the government impose even stricter standards and taxes.

Also, what speed limits? My top speed is way more than enough, hence the Mustang and not, you know, a Lambo or something. Oh, do you mean *legal* limits? Heh, April Fools is over, you can stop pretending that speed limits serve any purpose other than raising money through ticketing.

This graph shows where we would be if we did not build heavier, faster cars, with automatics.

And what is up with that? I learned on a 3-speed on the column (1974) and love driving a stick. Makes me feel like Mario Andretti. Could it be all the tech in the car? Can't text and shift. Or drink a latte without spilling.

And another thing: Why can't people use their turn indicators? Where were they when you had to hang your arm out the window to indicate? Grrr./sorry about the rant...

Significant reductions can be had today already. And they need not cost a fortune nor does it imply to strip all convenience and security features.

For instance we get 45 mpg from our family car if we restrict ourselves to 75 mph. And I get 50 mpg if we drive carefully and more in the 65 mph range. That's the long-distance real-life average within cities, on country roads and the autobahn. Even if we cruise the autobahn at 100 mph, which is a comfortable traveling speed for this car, it is pretty much impossible to get less than 35 mpg from this car.

Note that this is an off-the-shelf 2002 Skoda Octavia with AC, ABS, power-steering, a VW-engineered 90 hp tdi engine, five seats and sufficient room in the back. It's not an expensive high-tech car nor is it the very latest of car engineering.

Yes, people buy too much car for what they really need. We should think more about mobility rather than cars. For instance Mercedes' Car2Go mobility concept has been very successful during its pilot phase in Ulm. In short, Mercedes have placed many Smart micro cars all over the town. People had to register and could then easily pick one up when they needed it. Fair prices billed by the minute, hour or day depending on how long you need the car. Austin, TX, was another pilot. Not sure how this has been received in the U.S..

Many times, a Smart is all you need. Sometimes a station wagon. Rarely ever a truck. But too many people still go for the truck.

I love it when politicians can arbitrarily choose a hard number to be enacted beyond their term limit. It's political BS, all of it. If they were serious they would choose a shorter term goal within their term and have to face the challenges of meeting it. Instead they have none of the responsibilities for enacting their own orders. Obama will be past a possible second term by 2016. But, politicians can run on how they "enacted tough legislation" as a bullet point for their election cycles. I hate this crap, not the rule itself.

I also find it interesting that this isn't a mpg requirement, it's specifically a CAFE standard so the cats in DC can still take their Yukons to work but can buy carbon offsets. You can bet big money that there will be a carbon offset "fee" for car buyers who want to exceed the enacted standard. I don't trust Washington (regardless of party) at. all...

That's 'good'??? My TDI Jetta gets 45+ mpg (depending on how hard I am on that 'go faster pedal') and I just towed 7000 lbs (total weight) cross country. I also have pretty much every modern safety device they make, in a car with very good crash test ratings. So my *one* car (with a trailer when needed) replaces all 3 of that person's vehicles.

But it's not as fun or attractive as my Challenger. Admitedly I live a grand total of 4 miles from my job and so only need to fill up once a month but still.

And nope, people in the US don't use trailers (much), that is why we have pickups and probably will be the next vehicle I buy. They last forever, you can haul anything you need with them, and you don't have to worry about hooking up a trailer. You can also get them (at least around here which is farm country) dirt cheap. Come in handy whenever I need to get lumber (frequently in the spring-fall with all the projects the wife gives me), hauling my motorcycles, or going camping. Far more so than a trailer.

I dont own one, but the commenter may have been referring to the fact that hybrids only get their maximum benefit when being driven in more urban settings, where there is more frequent starting and stopping and thus usage of the electric motor. On wide open roads, hybrids depend on their gas engines and thus revert to the same gas mileage as their non-hybrid counterparts. In a sense, you are paying extra for something you dont really utilize.

Also, are US fuel prices really subzidized?

I was under the impression that the price disparity between the US and say Europe was due more to Europe's high taxes on fuel and less on the US subsidizing fuel. I know some oil producing countries such as Indonesia actually have direct subsidies and thus actually see fuel prices lower than the US.